- Joined
- Mar 21, 2005
- Messages
- 25,893
- Reaction score
- 12,484
- Location
- New York, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
I agree. And your numbers show the root cause of the problem. Let's take a deeper look.
Cutting Medicaid brings about a hissy fit from the over 65 crowd. They are the most vocal group in America. And they fund the AARP, the most powerful lobbyist organization in America. So how does a politician cut Medicaid? They don't if they want to keep their jobs.
Welfare. We spent about 4 years under Clinton and a GOP Congress cutting the welfare rolls (remember welfare to work?) and most people will tell you it's now harder to cut any more. Even the GOP couldn't make deeper cuts when they had control of both houses for 6 years.
Social Security. Completely untouchable and you know that. The AARP will rip the head off of any politician that goes near it. Even Bush and the GOP got slapped when they tried to privatize a tiny percentage of it.
DOD. Again almost untouchable for the GOP and the Dems. We have such a macho "John Wayne" mentality in America about our military that anyone who cuts defense spending is considered a wimp.
So where does that leave us? You don't want to cut DOD spending, but no one else wants to cut anything else either. And that's the root of the problem. Everyone has an excuse for not cutting spending. Yours is that cutting DOD spending won't amount to much.
Obama lies, a spending freeze would be nice but that just ins't truly happening.
FOXNews.com - Obama Seeks Partial Three-Year Spending Freeze
Please no "lulz fauxnews" posts.
Guarantee: He -will- continue to increase spending.Actually he's not lying. It's a spending freeze. Small yes. Temporary yes. But still it's a freeze.
Would you prefer Obama continue to increasing spending?
Guarantee: He -will- continue to increase spending.
There will be -no- overall year-to-year decrease in federal spending under The Obama.
As I said:I would love to disagree with you. Unfortunately I cannot. But I'll take even a temporary half-ass spending freeze for now. It's better than an increase.
There's no question that overall spending will continue to grow.I take this with a grain of salt. When politicians say that they are going to reduce spending, or freeze spending, what they really mean is that they are going to reduce the rate of growth. But what about the ruinous spending that is already in place? I didn't hear him say that he was going to reduce that. And, since this does not apply to certain programs, such as Homeland Security, it appears to me that overall spending will still actually increase.
Way to talk around the Q, and your use of smoke and mirrors, Mr. President.
Obama to propose spending freeze - Glenn Thrush and David Rogers - POLITICO.com
This is pretty surprising. Given the shifting national attitude, it looks to be that rare convergence of good policy, good timing, and good politics.
I take this with a grain of salt. When politicians say that they are going to reduce spending, or freeze spending, what they really mean is that they are going to reduce the rate of growth.
But what about the ruinous spending that is already in place? I didn't hear him say that he was going to reduce that. And, since this does not apply to certain programs, such as Homeland Security, it appears to me that overall spending will still actually increase.
Way to talk around the Q, and your use of smoke and mirrors, Mr. President.
The war in Iraq ciost less per year than the -growth- of entitlement spending.Perhaps, but he made deficit spending A-OK by precedent with his needless, wasteful Iraq War.
Well this could be a good start. However, America isn't going to be able to get rid of it's horrendous debt levels unless it makes significant cuts to it's ridiculously large military. Just ain't gonna happen.
Isn't that what it has always been about with these progressives? I mean just take a look at what he proposes doing to the banks right now? popular? yes. Pragmatic over populist? Hell no. And all the liberal anti capitalist rhetoric going on now, think that is a mistake, or a byproduct of the agenda? I say agenda.
Homeland Security is "ruinous spending"? Please explain further. And ofcourse the current track is going to push forward, and push us deeper in debt, that is the plan. Plouff isn't returning for a reunion. One of his first statements was that Obama needs to press full speed ahead. Reminds one of the Titanic.
Why still listen to a liar.
j-mac
I'm not going to be a political hack about it. It isn't just the Liberals who pull this crap. While in office, Bush claimed to be reducing the deficit, while in practice, he actually tripled it. Both parties are guilty as hell, so finger pointing, just because the only thing you are looking at is not the practice itself, but the letter next to the name (D or R), is not helping here.
If Obama wants to be honest, he should just man up and tell the truth. By the same token, there are plenty here who were dishonest enough to refuse to criticize Bush when he was doing exactly the same thing. Where were they when Bush was in office?
Where were they when Bush was in office?
Actually he's not lying. It's a spending freeze. Small yes. Temporary yes. But still it's a freeze.
Would you prefer Obama continue to increasing spending?
Do you think that anyone (anyone that is not already inebriated on The Omaba's kool-aid, anyway) will see this $25B/yr spending 'cut' as meaningful, and not the political ploy that you describe?... but I think Obama is mainly doing it for political purposes and in response to MA electing Senator Brown.He knows America is fed up with the budget, so he is trying to manipulate the masses into believing he is trying to fix the deficit and debt when he really isn't.
Well they must have been whispering their complaints.
I think it's good that he is wanting to freeze some things, but I think it would be better if he stopped pushing debt growing policies and repealed stimulus spending that hasn't been spent yet. I think this is a good small step, but I think Obama is mainly doing it for political purposes and in response to MA electing Senator Brown.He knows America is fed up with the budget, so he is trying to manipulate the masses into believing he is trying to fix the deficit and debt when he really isn't. It's all about his popularity, not about doing what is good for the country.
Do you think that anyone (anyone that is not already inebriated on The Omaba's kool-aid, anyway) will see this $25B/yr spending 'cut' as meaningful, and not the political ploy that you describe?
Give this man a see-gar, he sees the big picture.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?